[cgl_discussion] POC 11/19/03 meeting mintues

Venkata Jagana jagana at us.ibm.com
Wed Nov 19 09:57:27 PST 2003






Regarding SNMP MIB Item, I had an AR earlier. I have provided
a modified requirement on Nov 5th and assumed that you are including
this in the errata list. In case, you missed it, here is the corresponding
link:
http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/cgl_discussion/2003-November/001653.html

In case, you don't have access to the link, here is the corresponding text:

>>AR Venkata to provide updated requirement.

Since it was decided in PoC meeting today to add note(s) to developers
instead of changing a requirement, here is the corresponding text for
consideration in the errata or whatever document, PoC will come up with.

"There is currently an on-going effort within IETF to combine IPv4 and
IPv6 MIBs into corresponding unified MIBs (i.e.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update-04.txt
for IP,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-04.txt
for TCP,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-01.txt
for UDP).  The current versions (a.k.a. work-in-progress documents) of
these unified documents are currently expected within IETF to become
proposed standards soon and thus would be replacing the current standard
RFC's (which will then be marked obsolete) for these MIBs as specified in
SVC 1.4 requirement.

Hence, the developers are encouraged to implement based on these unified
work-in-progress MIB documents (ptrs above) and thus continue to make
changes until these draft standards become proposed standards.
"

Thanks,
Venkat




                                                                                                                                               
                      Steven Dake                                                                                                              
                      <sdake at mvista.com>                To:       "Fleischer, Julie N" <julie.n.fleischer at intel.com>                           
                      Sent by:                          cc:       cgl_discussion at osdl.org                                                      
                      cgl_discussion-bounces at lis        Subject:  RE: [cgl_discussion] POC 11/19/03 meeting mintues                            
                      ts.osdl.org                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               
                      11/19/2003 09:23 AM                                                                                                      
                      Please respond to sdake                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               




On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 10:13, Fleischer, Julie N wrote:
> > Attendees:
> > Steve @ MontaVista
> > Ge @ Sun
> > Stefano @ Nokia
> >
> > Attendees decided since not enough attendees, meeting cancelled.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -steve
>
> Steve -
> Sorry I didn't make it (I had a meeting run over.).  Sorry for
> not letting you know beforehand it was a possibility.  All
> the errata in the agenda looked good to me.  For the STD.2.20,
> I'd still propose completely removing the sentence, as you
> captured.
>
> Also, on the errata we've already discussed, I thought I
> remembered a timeline of publication before sending to specs
> on 12/1.  Are those errata available now?  Or, were you
> waiting for feedback on the outstanding items first?  (I ask
> because of the SNMP MIBS item.)
>
I would have liked to have the errata out by now, but not surprisingly
it is a big job...  I should have a draft by Friday (since
today/tomorrow are consumed by the f2f in Plano.)
Thanks
-steve
> - Julie
>
> **These views are not necessarily those of my employer.**
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion






More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list